Three Virginia students are continuing their legal fight after being denied state-funded tuition assistance because of their pursuit of religious studies, appealing a recent federal court decision that sided with the state. The case, now before the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, centers on whether Virginia’s grant programs unlawfully discriminate against students who choose theology or religious training as their course of study. The appeal was filed by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a conservative nonprofit legal organization representing the students.
Cameron Johnson, Luke Thomas, and Trace Stevens initially filed the lawsuit in 2025 against officials from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, the Virginia Department of Military Affairs, and the state’s adjutant general. The students argue that they were excluded from two public funding sources—the Virginia Tuition Assistance Grant program and the Virginia National Guard State Tuition Assistance Program—solely because of their religious academic pursuits at Liberty University, a private Christian institution in Lynchburg. At the time the suit was filed, Johnson and Thomas were high school seniors who had been accepted to Liberty University and planned to study religion. Both were denied state tuition grants due to a policy prohibiting funding for religious coursework. Stevens, already enrolled at the university, was similarly denied financial support through the National Guard program because his studies were classified as “religious training or theological education.”
In a March 31 ruling, U.S. District Judge Roderick Young rejected the students’ request for a preliminary injunction that would have required the state to grant immediate financial aid. Young determined the request was moot, noting that the specific academic terms referenced in the motion—summer 2025, fall 2025, and spring 2026—had already passed or were partially completed by the time of the decision. The judge also dismissed claims against the State Council of Higher Education and expressed skepticism about the students’ likelihood of prevailing on constitutional grounds. Specifically, Young indicated the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success in arguing that the policies violated the Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Despite the setback, ADF attorneys argue that the lower court’s decision fails to address what they describe as clear constitutional violations. In a statement, ADF Senior Counsel John Bursch said the state’s policies effectively treat religious students as “second-class citizens.” “The First Amendment prohibits the government from excluding students from otherwise available grants solely because they chose religious programs,” Bursch said. “Students should not be penalized for pursuing what they believe God has called them to do.”
In its appellate brief, ADF contends that Virginia has already denied the three students “thousands of dollars” in financial support based solely on their religious choices. The organization is asking the appeals court to intervene and prevent further harm while the case moves forward. The filing emphasizes the financial impact of the denied aid, arguing that even relatively small amounts can significantly affect students’ ability to afford higher education. “A few thousand dollars is life-changing for students,” the brief states, while asserting that such costs are minimal within the state’s broader higher education funding framework. The case now moves to the appellate level, where the court will determine whether Virginia’s policies unlawfully restrict access to public benefits based on religious activity. The outcome could have broader implications for how states structure financial aid programs involving faith-based education.
PRAY: Pray that freedom of religion, a hallmark principle of the Founding Fathers, will not be slowly eroded to the point it is no longer a viable freedom within the United States.